Appeal No. 2007-0673
Application No. 09/847,794
Principles of Law
Office personnel must rely on Appellant’s disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed.
Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be
confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification,
which is improper.’” (emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout
Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-Vet Laboratories Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1474,
1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989). It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention
by the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by the
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702
F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Analysis
Independent claim 1 recites a point of sale terminal with a display for
“displaying a performance goal screen at the start of the work session to
indicate to the cashier a performance goal for the work session” and
“displaying at the end of the work session a performance report screen
including the cashier’s measured performance and the performance goal.”
Claim 1 also recites that the work session starts at the time the cashier logs
on and ends when the cashier logs off. Independent claim 11 includes
similar limitations.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013